Hayastan vs. Diaspora

[Guest]

Hnchakian Party Urges All Hnchakian Organizations To Rally Around Armenia

 

YEREVAN (Noyan Tapan)--The Social-Democratic Hnchakian party of Armenia is calling on all Hnchakian organizations around the world to terminate all mutual accusations in the past and rally around the Republic of Armenia.

 

In its statement issued on January 17, the party says that during the 114-year existence of the Hnchakian movement, the party has written glorious pages in

the history of the liberation movement, however there have been failures, omissions and mistakes, and now is time to rectify those mistakes. The document states, "In this sense, the best occasion is this year, when the entire Armenian nation is marking the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity as Armenia's state religion."

[Guest]

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE LECTURE SERIES PROGRAM

 

---------------------------------------------MAY 25, 2000

 

---------------------------------------------

 

THE ARMENIAN LOBBY ABROAD

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

ROOBEN SHOOGARYAN

 

 

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia

 

 

We are currently the second most powerful lobby in the USA (the first one being the Jewish lobby).

 

The theme is lobbying in general, but I will speak mainly about the Armenian lobby in the USA because lobbying as such was born and is currently most developed in the USA. I shall also touch on the Armenian lobby in European countries and in Russia.

The Armenian lobby developed in three phases: one phase before independence, and the last two, after it. Before independence, the main objective of the Armenian lobby was to obtain recognition of the Armenian Genocide. This had brought about quite a powerful reaction both in the USA and in European countries. Perhaps this was the process during which the Armenian lobby was shaped. Every year, the US President would make announcements on April 24; various discussions would take place in committees of both the Senate and the Congress. The Armenian lobby was primarily established in Washington, DC.

 

After independence, we had two phases. The Genocide remained as one of the main and most important issues, but in the second phase, the activities of the US Congress concerning Azerbaijan and Turkey were added to it. As a matter of fact, the Armenian lobby was targeted in one direction during the first two phases: it was aimed to counter either Turkey or Azerbaijan. Of course, this was done to protect the interests of Armenia; however, it was done in one direction. As a result of this, we managed to become known in the USA during those years, especially in the period from 1992 to 1995. Our success was partially determined by the joint or separate efforts of two lobbying organizations, the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian Cause Group. This was a period in which we made numerous enemies in the US Congress, R & D centers, and the authorities. Prior to 1991, the image and rating of Armenia was presented in very simple and uniform terms: we are a nation that always faces tragedies and is a victim.

 

Our success in the Artsakh process in the period from 1991 to 1993, however, was reflected in our lobby. It changed the perception some had of Armenia. Others began to think of us not only as a nation constantly facing tragedies, victimized and needing support, but also as a serious regional element. As I pointed out, we gained numerous enemies, which is the law of lobbying: enemies always come about in the first phase. They began to respect us more -- they paid more attention to us (but mainly in the negative sense). Nevertheless, events concerning Armenia and Artsakh became increasingly important in official and unofficial Washington.

 

In the second phase that followed independence, we started to work with the enemies that had appeared in the earlier years. We tried to establish relations with them. Before 1998 and 1999, our organizations succeeded not only in improving the situation, but also in becoming an important factor in the USA: so important, that we managed to enter a civilized dialogue even with the Jewish lobby organizations.

 

I can list numerous examples of comparison between our lobby in the USA and that of others. Traditionally, the Armenian lobby was the fourth or fifth in the USA in terms of how powerful it was. The more powerful ones were the Jewish, Greek, Polish, and sometimes even the lobbies of the Baltic States and the Ukraine. I believe that in the period that followed independence, we have gradually moved up this list and we are currently the second most powerful lobby in the USA (the first one being the Jewish lobby). Of course, the Jewish lobby is above any competition. Nevertheless, the Armenian lobby has become an important factor. It is not accidental that in 1998, a cartoon in one of the largest political magazines of the USA pictured American foreign policy as a ship with the Israeli and Armenian flags at each end. I think that it is the best compliment we could have received. In the second phase, we started to work with some oil companies (which defended Azerbaijan and used to be our opponents) and certain Jewish organizations. We developed cooperation and coordinated our activities with them. The Armenian organizations (the Armenian Assembly of America and the Armenian Cause Group) managed to combine their efforts and help each other in achieving some success. To date, our most successful achievement has been Section 907 that the US Congress adopted in 1992. This formula prohibits aid from being given to Azerbaijan, because it blocks the path of US humanitarian aid to Armenia. At each passing year, keeping this formula became more difficult. In 1997 and 1998, it turned into an extremely difficult job. We had found a very careful formula that fully complied with the law. This was a formula that we used to coordinate the activities of the local Armenian organizations.

 

Back in 1997, the administration, as well as the White House, the Congress, and many R & D centers, clearly announced that Section 907 would be removed during that year because it was against the interests of the USA. Nevertheless, we managed to keep the formula by a margin of 51 votes. Our opponents in this matter were twelve oil companies, five Jewish organizations, as well as several Turkish and Azeri lobby organizations. We managed to preserve the formula primarily because we were working in an organized manner, and there were no conflicts amongst Armenian organizations: they did a perfect job.

 

Of course, the Jewish lobby is the strongest in the USA, and so the question arises: how did we manage to overcome them? One should not forget that the Jewish lobby is the strongest when it is lobbying for the interests of Israel. When it is renting its lobby out or donating it to somebody else, then we have a better chance of overcoming it, because we know much better what we are struggling for, and we also know the strengths and weaknesses of our opponent better. Our second victory was perhaps the one that which got the “Silk Road” pact to fail in being adopted. Seven countries were pushing for a motion by Senator Premack, by which the “Silk Road” would be restored without making any reference to solving the problems of Armenia’s blockade and the Artsakh issue. The only argument we had was that such a formula could not be adopted when the borders are closed between the countries in question. It was very difficult for us to get this point across because in this case, we had to deal with the American Senate where we have fewer friends than in the Congress – especially after Senator Dole’s absence. Nevertheless, our attempts were successful. We gained a new situation in which many people understood that in order to promote American business interests, they must talk to Armenia, rather than speak to oil companies or use ethnic groups to put pressure on the Congress. Our country must be involved in the processes. The seven countries that the “Silk Road” idea involved (the Central Asian countries, Georgia, and Azerbaijan) also understood this. We are not against cooperation, as long as regional problems are solved.

 

All of this comes to prove that we carry out our lobby mainly by means of confronting some other countries. Naturally, this cannot go on for long. We need to search and find common interests. It is now necessary to get our opponents interested, and a foundation has already been laid out for this. Currently, we have quite good cooperation with Jewish organizations. We discuss together all the issues that concern our Diaspora, and this proves that they have accepted the notion of Armenia’s weight in Washington.

 

There is another area of lobbying -- the positive lobby -- that we underestimate. I believe this matter has to be dealt with in the third phase, although some attempts to touch on it had been made in the first two phases. The positive lobby mainly seeks common interests with certain states and various ethnic groups to solve problems. For example, I believe that Armenia has many issues that it can solve in the USA together with the Ukraine. Having powerful Diasporas, our countries can successfully cooperate by continuing what has already been started (in particular, in the areas of atomic power safety and many business projects).

 

Let me give you another example of the positive lobby that is not aimed against any country (in other words, a lobby that only intends to protect the interests of Armenia). We are currently involved in two projects. One is called the Sesame Project. UNESCO is planning to install an accelerator in Armenia or elsewhere. We are collaborating with the Armenian Institute of Physics, and we are lobbying in many countries to have the accelerator brought to Armenia. This is a project that will create new jobs and help us become a regional center in terms of high technology. This is very difficult work because the accelerator was initially designated for post-conflict rehabilitation of the Arab-Israel confrontation. Considering this, we tried to present ourselves under a better light than the ten Arab countries that were involved. We proposed our project, and Armenia was one of the two countries (the other one being Jordan) that were left in the final stage of the selection process. Our success in this matter was determined by our positive lobby in various countries. I must mention that in the USA, for example, we collected the signatures of 50 congressmen and 15 senators for this purpose. We have done a lot of work with Israel, Greece, Cyprus, and other countries. Of course, it is a very difficult project and I can say with confidence that a lot of competition is to be expected. Perhaps, the project ultimately becomes a joint one between Armenia and Jordan. In any case, this process has marked a new stage in our lobby.

 

There is a similar project involving the German government. It centers around the requirement for 20 000 software experts. Of course, this idea is mainly for India because it is quite developed in terms of computer technology. The project also covered countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We reacted quite efficiently, and by means of direct negotiations with various governments (including that of Germany), we presented a note in which we suggested our formula. According to the project, 20 000 experts are to be taken to Germany to work. They will receive salaries in Germany, provided that their families remain in their home countries. We suggested that instead of paying higher salaries to these experts, they could do the same work by means of the Internet -- while remaining in their home countries. Time will show how the discussion of this matter (in which we are lobbying in a new way) goes.

 

 

To date, our most successful achievement has been Section 907 that the US Congress adopted in 1992. This formula prohibits aid from being given to Azerbaijan.

Back in 1994, our lobbying efforts allowed us to sign an agreement with the USA. The agreement was unique in that none of the former Soviet Union countries had such a result. It was an agreement with the National Institute of Health (NIH); considered to be the most developed health institution in the world. To reach this agreement, we used individual lobbyists rather than organizations. It might seem quite simple at first sight. The agreement created an opportunity for the treatment of the so-called "Armenian Disease” (also known as the “Mediterranean Disease”) that is a problem in both the USA and Israel. This is another example of a positive lobby that helped us have an agreement since 1994. We now have experts that go to the NIH every year and work there. I could bring a number of other examples from the science sector.

 

Turkey and Azerbaijan hire lobbying organizations that cost around three to five million US dollars a year. Does Armenian need this type of lobby or not? We actually tested this type of lobby in 1993 when we hired (for a very small amount of money) a company called “Jefferson Group”, which was quite powerful in Washington. The Group worked for us for about seven months: they opened many doors for us, and we parted on good terms and with gratitude. The wealth that we have within Armenian organizations is quite sufficient for us to successfully lobby. Another aspect, however, is that it is sometimes necessary for American surnames to appear in newspaper articles. There are problems that cannot be solved right now, and perhaps more power is required to do it. Even if we were to try to solve them, we would have to be very careful and do it only for a limited number of projects. This is because in purely political terms, no ethnic group can substitute ours. The experience of Azerbaijan and Turkey proves this.

 

 

There is another area of lobbying -- the positive lobby -- that we underestimate.

Starting from 1994, Turkey has carried out its lobby mainly in the Pentagon, attaching less priority to the State Department and the Congress. They have been concurrently working in American universities to create Turkish studies departments there. Numerous students and professors have been sent to the US from Turkey, and they have managed to be somewhat successful. However, the Turkish lobby in the USA does not have any significance as compared to the Armenian one. I would like to say a few words about the particularities of the Armenian lobby and the Armenian organizations. I mentioned the names of two organizations, but we have numerous individual lobbyists that have great opportunities. It is significant that Armenians have reached high posts and positions mostly through the Republican Party. Some examples of such individuals are: Ed Jerejyan (former US ambassador to Israel, Syria, and former deputy State Secretary, currently the director of the Baker Institute), George Deukmejyan (former Governor of California), and Beriz Ordyan (former speaker of the National Council of the USA and Deputy Ambassador of the USA to Korea and Vietnam). Recently, positive trends have been noticed among Armenian democrats, as well. In general, both Armenian democrats and Armenian republicans are registered in California, which is quite a good and potentially helpful phenomenon. We need to appear in the USA not only through our national character and with our national issues, but also as people with American ideas. If we do not prove that the Armenian Diaspora in the USA is an important part of the internal political life there, then we cannot expect tangible results.

 

As far as democrats go, I would like to mention Rooben Terzyan from Chicago. He has wonderful connections and has helped us a lot in many areas. Another person is Ani Tota, who is currently in the election campaign of Vice-President Gore.

 

I believe that we can become, and we are already becoming, an important factor in Washington. If we look at the Armenian embassy, for example, we can see its significance in Washington and its excellent connections with the embassy of Russia. We have so far been successful in areas where we have had clashes of interests. We must prove that other countries like the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Bulgaria can come to the Armenian embassy, or approach Armenian organizations, and cooperate with them in terms of mutual consulting and so on. We already have precedents of this kind.

 

I believe that lobbying is a very delicate job, and our state must always remain at a certain distance from lobbying -- something that we have been able to do so far. However, keeping this distance does not prevent us from participating in certain activities. Perhaps, we should not be telling our organizations what they should do. Instead, we can do what we think needs to be done. I have been often asked to influence these organizations in having “nicer” or “milder” hearings of certain matters in the Congress. I always answered in the same way: “They are citizens of your country, and it is your job to talk to citizens of your country.” This is the principle that we have applied. We can tell them what they can do, but we cannot tell them what they may not do. This is the law of lobbying. I would like to briefly tell you about our activities in other countries, which have so far not been noticeable. Currently, lobbying is thought of as an American phenomenon. Nevertheless, the Armenian lobby is becoming very powerful in Russia owing to the Diaspora. Numerous steps have been taken, and the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Russian Duma (Parliament) and the re-commissioning of the Armenian Atomic Power Plant are clear example of the success of the Armenian lobby in Russia. I believe that the Armenian Diaspora in Russia is doing more intensive experiments related to the Artsakh issue and some economic problems. Attempts are also made in France -- a different country that has a much more negative attitude towards lobbying than any other country. We must be careful here and, perhaps, move more slowly and cautiously in France than in other countries. We cannot ignore the peculiarity of France. We can work very actively in Scandinavian countries; we have already had some success in the Swedish Parliament. In order to have a successful lobby, we must have a concept on our foreign policy. We work mainly on the basis of either existing information or speeches and general directions given by the authorities. We will not be able to think about progress unless we have integrated concepts on the foreign policy and national security of Armenia. Currently, some attempts are being made, and I hope that we will soon have documents

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 

 

- As far as I understand, you are raising two very important points that contradict each other. It is not a secret for anyone that, even considering the money spent by oil companies and by Turkey, it is very difficult to overcome our lobby. This is because the Armenian Diaspora in the USA votes in an organized manner, and votes are very important for any congressmen and senator. On the other hand, you pointed out another important problem that, in the political life of the USA, members of the Armenian Diaspora must have their own place just as any other citizen of the USA. Given this background, how do you envisage the solution of these two problems?

 

-The only possibility that I can see is that the Diaspora is not told what to do, while they develop politicians who may occupy high posts. The two problems have to be treated concurrently; our main lobbyist fronts remain the Armenian Cause Group and the Armenian Assembly of America. They are after uniquely Armenian interests. In some cases, the Armenian Assembly of America tries to combine Armenian and American interests. However, there is another alternative: the Armenian Diaspora can be presented as an important element of the internal political life of the USA. We already have a large number of Armenian democrats and republicans who promote Armenia’s interests in their organizations in much more delicate ways. They explain to others that the interests of Armenia and those of the USA are not contradictory. In some cases, even, they coincide. They want to convince the others that if everything is explained in terms of oil pipelines that are referred to as “oil pipelines of peace”, then tomorrow, they can be referred to as “oil pipelines of war”. They want to prove that it is not correct to attach such a high importance to economic and oil-related issues and determine all the other issues (including those of national security) through them. In this case, we see another type of lobby that is carried out both in the Democratic, and in the Republican parties. I would like to point out that the members of the Armenian Assembly of America and the Armenian Cause Group are also members of political parties. These things have to be combined. I believe we must work in two directions: we must promote purely Armenian interests as voters, and we must present these interests in a more delicate way as ones that match American ones.

 

-- Section 907 allows the President of the USA to make exceptions on the basis of the national interests of the USA. This is something that Turkey constantly makes use of. In this sense, are not we overestimating the importance of Section 907?

 

First of all, I must mention that this formula has already been in force for eight years, and the US President has never utilized the right that you pointed out. This is a situation in which the President would have to send the amendment back to the US congress, which would have to adopt it buy a two-thirds majority. The US President has not done this yet, despite the fact that this caused a worsening of the relationships with Azerbaijan (which is actively working in this direction).

As for Turkey’s humanitarian corridor, there are two issues here. First of all, Turkey is an important factor and an ally for the USA, which is why the President did what you pointed out. Second, in the USA, they understand very well that Section 907 is a much more important formula for the Armenian Diaspora than the Humanitarian Corridor Act as it relates to Turkey.

 

-- The so-called “Armenian National Council” of the Armenian “Dashnaktzakan” party and the Armenian Assembly of America compete abroad. Does the Government of Armenia agree that non-state institutions present the position of Armenia during lobbying, especially considering that these institutions are often not friendly with each other?

 

First of all, there are no contradictions related to issues that concern the national interests. These organizations have already been closely cooperating in many matters for around four years.

As far as the second part of your question goes, only the Armenian Ambassador or an employee of the Armenian embassy who is authorized by the Ambassador may speak on behalf of Armenia in the USA. Indeed, neither the Armenian Cause Group of the Armenian National Council, nor the Armenian Assembly has the right to speak on behalf of Armenia. They can express their opinion about internal life or foreign policy, but it will only be their opinion, which is very well understood in the USA.

 

- Don’t you think that the lack of the concept of what it is to be Armenian may cause the Armenian lobby to fail?

 

As I already mentioned, we need to develop concepts both for our national security and for our foreign policy. These concepts ought to include all the issues related to the point that you raised.

 

- How do you see the future of the Armenian lobby, considering the activities of purely Armenian political parties (like the “Dashnaktzootyoon”, “Ramkavar”, etc)?

 

-- If you are speaking of political parties, you cannot forget that they do not deal with lobbying. For example, the Armenian “Dashnaktzakan” party does not deal with lobby; it is the Armenian Cause Group, a branch of this party, which does so. The same thing is true for the Armenian Assembly of America, which is an apolitical organization.

As for the “Ramkavar” (Democratic) or “Hntshakyan” parties, they do not have any organizational structures that deal with lobbying issues. However, they have excellent individuals that do so. This is a unique case, in which it is necessary to get registered as a lobby organization, and parties cannot act as such organizations because of legal reasons.

 

-- If the Armenian lobby is so strong, why can it not influence the presidential candidates that promise (during their campaign) to help Armenians to obtain recognition of the Genocide, and once elected, they forget their promises? A good example of this is George Bush Jr. who has promised, in his electoral campaign, that he will support both Armenians and Turks.

 

-- It is very natural. First of all, the Armenian lobby is undoubtedly strong. However, I pointed out that these are relative points. When I was comparing us with the Jewish lobby, I said that we won because they were competing against us to protect the interests of a third country. If they were protecting the interests of their own country, they would definitely be much stronger, and we would have given in. It has all become very obvious.

As for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the USA, I believe that in this kind of lobby, we must remember that we do not want only the President to recognize the Genocide. This is more of a supporting factor. Of course, it would be very nice if the President of the USA recognized the Armenian Genocide, and I am sure that there will be a day when s/he will do so. This touches the National Security of the USA, and no lobby can go against these interests. If there is something that stands lower than these interests, we are likely to be successful in it.

Speaking of this issue, I must point out that we are generally used to traditional approaches. We think that we first need the president of a country to recognize the Genocide, after which we need the parliament to do the same, and so on. Of course, this looks very good, but when we raise the issue of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, then we must work only from the legal perspective. What is the legal perspective? In 1915, large American insurance companies worked in Turkey and insured the property of the Armenians who lived in Turkey. The largest one of these organizations is currently one that has billions of dollars and is called “New York Life”. We must work with these organizations. There are numerous documents held both by individuals and by organizations. We can use these documents in the same way in which the Jews used some documents against Germans, when they started court cases related to Swiss banks in many different courts. This is the serious way of approaching the lobby.

 

-- How do the Turkish and Azeri lobbies collaborate?

 

--They collaborate in the same that the embassies of Turkey and Azerbaijan collaborate: very closely. They are actually one organization. The Turkish lobby is quite serious; it has a background of 26 years dating back to the time when they started their lobby in the Pentagon and expanded to cover universities. Azerbaijan’s lobby has a history of just four or five years. The Turks do most of their work for them. As opposed to the Turks, Azeris do their lobby in the State Secretariat. No one may lobby there. It is neither accepted, nor can it possibly be successful.

 

-- What is the impact of the unstable internal political situation of Armenia on the Armenian lobby?

 

--A more stable internal political situation, a stronger Armenia, and more precise outgoing signals will facilitate the activities of those abroad. An unstable internal political situation in Armenia and inappropriate developments in our country will have an impact on the Armenian lobby. Lobbying can be just like diplomacy, which often precedes foreign policy and determines the latter. However, an unstable country with problems will have a negative impact on the lobby and destroy its important guiding principles.

 

-- Is trade-off possible between the Armenian lobby and its opponents? For example, is it possible that Section 907 be given up in exchange for more aid to Armenia?

 

--Of course, it is possible. Such a transaction has been offered to us numerous times, but we have never accepted it. This possibility is often discussed in different contexts, but we will exchange certain things for equivalent ones. We cannot exchange quality for quantity. We cannot lose an important factor in negotiations for something like more aid. However, if we were realistic, we could notice that Section 907 has already lost some of its important provisions (due to some “losses” of ours). Provisions have been lost because exceptions have been made for OPEC, the Exim Bank, and the TDA, which are large American quasi-governmental organizations that already operate in Azerbaijan.

 

-- Don’t you think that it is a severe blow to our lobby that the Exim Bank has refused to provide 50 million US dollars to “General Motors” for a factory in Armenia and explained its action by the instability of the region? This was done despite this bank’s readiness to provide a larger sum for the Baku-Jeyhan pipeline. Please elaborate.

 

First of all, “being ready” does not mean anything. They are ready, but they have not provided any funds. As for “General Motors”, what happened was a result of the internal situation in Armenia, rather than a “loss” of our lobby. It was a “loss” for all of us. We do not provide any investments, so we should not blame the lobby for everything that happens. This was a result of our internal situation.

 

-- Did the speech on the Armenian Genocide, which was delivered to the UN by the Armenian President help or hinder the Armenian lobby?

 

-- I believe that our lobby had started to deal with this issue much sooner than our state. The President represents the state and expresses its position. However, lobbying is a more difficult mechanism that is delicate in many ways. I believe that this activity will continue regardless of what heads of state say about these issues in their speeches.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Rooben Shoogaryan

was born in 1962, in Moscow. He graduated from the Russian and English Languages Faculty of the Bryoosov Yerevan Institute of Foreign Languages in 1985.

He graduated from the post-graduate School of Philosophy of Yerevan State University in 1989.

From 1985 to 1991, he worked in the Social Professions faculty of Yerevan Polytechnic Institute as an English Language instructor. From January to November of 1991, he was an expert in the Armenian Supreme Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

From November 1991 to July 1992, he was Assistant to the President of Armenia. From July 1992 to February 1993, he was the Press Secretary of the President of Armenia. From February 1993 to October 1999, he was the Ambassador of Armenia to the USA.

In 1993, Rooben Shoogaryan was granted the diplomatic rank of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary.

Since 1999, he is the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia.

Rooben Shoogaryan is fluent in Armenian, English, and Russian. He is married and has three children.

 

http://www.aua.am/aua/extens/lectures/37_e.htm

[Guest]

Parev

 

 

I think we should abolish the labels, Beriutsi,Barsgahye or hyeastantsi. We just don't have that luxury to seperate Armenians from various parts of the Globe, We just can't afford it, Were small in numbers allready, The perception of Odars is very important to us. Sometimes I get asked what kind of an Armenian are you ? I never knew there was various kinds... I always answer them back just plain Vanilla . Think of unity, Why drive away our new generations away from Armenianism.

[Guest]

I came across an interesting amterial.

_____________________________________________

Fresh Perspectives on Armenia-Diaspora Relations

Khachig Tölölyan and Krikor Beledian Speak with Haratch

 

The 2 and 3 July 1998 editions of the Paris-based Armenian daily Haratch carried a provocative conversation between Khachig Tölölyan and Krikor Beledian, moderated by Haratch correspondent Arpi Totoyan. Tölölyan, a professor of English at Wesleyan University, is the editor of Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies. Beledian is professor of Armenian studies at INALCO (Paris) and the Catholic University of Lyon. In Haratch, they explored the dynamics of the relationship between Armenia and the Armenian diaspora in the context of a changing Armenia, a changing diaspora, and a changing world.1

 

The conversation started with an attempt to define the term "diaspora." Tölölyan noted that in academic discussions there is contention between two approaches. According to the classical approach, the prerequisite of being a diaspora is to have been expelled by overwhelming force from a homeland. The Jewish and Armenian cases serve as archetypes for this definition.

 

In the other approach, a diaspora is considered to be a mass of people who live outside a country of origin without necessarily having been expelled from it. The individual maintains ties with that mass, which engages in collective efforts to maintain an identity. This identity is no longer that of the homeland, nor that of the new country. It is a dually rooted identity.

 

Going beyond academic definitions, Tölölyan observed that many Armenians consider the diaspora to be a segment of the population of the homeland, a segment that aspires or must aspire to reintegrate with the whole. They further believe that a diaspora that does not aspire to reclaim and return to the homeland, or to share its views, is therefore opposed to it.

 

From Ghetto to Diaspora?

 

Beledian made a distinction between the terms spiurk and kaghutahayutiun. Spiurk (the Armenian term for diaspora) has a long pedigree—Saint Nerses Shnorhali spoke in the twelfth century of Armenians "i spiurs ashkharhi" (scattered in the world).2 Yet, until quite recently, Armenians preferred to speak of kaghuts (colonies) and kaghutahayutiun (Armenians of the colonies).

 

The two forms of social organization coexist today, Beledian argued. Communities of recent migrants from Armenia are kaghuts. Diaspora is a different circumstance, one that assumes local integration. The distinction is significant because new colonies and older, established ones do not have many ties. Los Angeles is a case in point. The new kaghuts consist of people who left their homeland for economic reasons. The diaspora, on the other hand, has the Genocide as its point of departure. It clings to the memory of the Catastrophe; the more distant the memory becomes, the more the diaspora seems to write about it.

 

Tölölyan was opposed to designating 1915 as the origin of the diaspora. He noted that dispersion has been part of the Armenian reality for centuries.

 

Tölölyan found it significant that "there is an intelligentsia in the diaspora that is aware of the fact that we have a dual nature, dual lives, and are subject to integration locally. On the other hand, in Armenia, people whose vocabulary is one-third Russian are convinced that they are pure or real Armenians and we in the diaspora are not. They are as Russian, as odar [alien], as I am American. The difference is that I am conscious of this fact and they are not."

 

Beledian took the point further. He argued that Armenians, like many people who have suffered, naturally believe that they must strive to remain homogeneous. "We suffer from a complex. We want all of us to be alike, without differences. Whereas, in fact, over time, localizing processes bring out and intensify differences. Our ideology, however, does not tolerate differences. We must all be alike. But if we are all alike, we’ll have precious little about which to talk to each other."

 

Tölölyan made distinctions among "diasporics," "ethnics," and people who are assimilated in all but name. He defined diasporics as dedicated and often militant Armenians who maintain ties with their counterparts in other parts of the world and with the homeland. Ethnics nominally acknowledge their Armenian identity, and demonstrate it in small ways: for example, they go to an Armenian church once, twice, three times a year; if you know them personally, you can convince them to write a check to an Armenian organization. Committed diasporics are a small minority, outnumbered by ethnics and the assimilated. As long as they maintain transnationally active institutions and occupy leadership positions, however, things work.

 

Tölölyan noted that there is an effort underway to bring these Armenians under a single umbrella. This umbrella would be associated not with the church or such organizations as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation or Armenian General Benevolent Union, as in the past, but directly with the Armenian state. This effort to integrate the diaspora into the constituency of the Armenian state cannot, however, eliminate the differences between Armenia and the diaspora. Even repatriation maintained the difference between us and them, diaspora and homeland.

 

The moderator confirmed the last point by recalling the wide and persistent use of "akhbar" in Armenia to refer to repatriated Armenians. "Akhbar," in use for decades, is a peculiar pronunciation of the Armenian word for brother. It presumably mocks the dialect of Western Armenian repatriates as well as, perhaps, their tendency to see every Armenian in Armenia as a brother or sister. The moderator asked whether there is a way of putting differences to good use.

 

Armenians should sharpen their differences, Beledian argued, rather than hiding them in the hope of a distant reunion. To sharpen differences means to assert values that one has, that one believes in, and that the person one is talking to does not necessarily hold. An Armenian is a person who constantly asks who he or she is. The question of identity is itself part of Armenian identity. Land, moreover, is no longer one of the basic elements of the definition of identity. It is possible to understand that it is very important to some people. It is possible to understand differences. The Armenia that is indispensable to all Armenians is not a territory but a concept.3

 

Tölölyan asked what it is about the idea of being Armenian that drives Armenians to talk to each other. Why do you say "I am Armenian?" If you say "That is my identity," I say, "In relation to whom and what?" A person who either nostalgically or out of embarrassment or guilt says, "I am Armenian" is not yet Armenian, because identity is relational. "I am Armenian" means very little unless one is able to say, "We are Armenians." Saying the latter requires a degree of engagement in comradeship or argument or both; at any rate, it requires involvement. There is a significant difference between subjectivity and agency. Some can make the transition from internalized sentiment to externalized participation through a strictly local group—the church board, say. Others can make it through a different kind of group—a group of women talking about the trauma of genocide and shame in the third or fourth generation, say—this is still a diaspora activity, with the homeland’s memory thrown in. Still others can do it playing soccer with Homenetmen, while others need the big A, Armenia. The most important first step is from "I" to "we," feeling identity as personal to feeling identity as communal, and then acting for that community. There is a constant effort to bring people together to convert their feelings into action for the benefit of Armenia and perhaps for the benefit of the Armenian people.

 

Beledian was more interested in Armenians than in Armenia. Focusing on overtures to the diaspora by the Armenian state, he said that Armenia’s goal, now as in the past, is to make the diaspora an instrument. Any state would do the same. The question was whether the people of the diaspora would want to become mere instruments and whether they could agree to become instruments without endangering their survival as communities. The moderator pointed out that Vardan Oskanian, the (diasporan or formerly diasporan) foreign minister of Armenia, recently complained that the diaspora’s potential has not been exploited enough.

 

Reacting to moderator Arpi Totoyan’s point, Beledian expressed disappointment that the department of the Armenian government that deals with the diaspora is housed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He found it paradoxical that the Armenian state wants to exploit the potential of Armenians abroad as Armenians while viewing only Armenians in the Republic of Armenia as the genuine article. The Armenian government represents "Hayastantsis" (people from Armenia), but not the "Hai" (Armenian) people. The concept of Hai is broader than that of Hayastantsi. Hayastantsi Hais are one variant of the category Hai; Gharabaghtsi Hais are another; and then there are the diasporan variants. It is difficult to get Hayastantsis to accept that they constitute but one subset of an Armenian universe.

 

Tölölyan agreed that what has changed is the strategy. The goal is always to organize the diaspora the better to utilize it. The moderator, however, raised the possibility of a more balanced give-and-take relationship between Armenia and the diaspora.

 

Armenia is not disposed to give the diaspora anything, argued Beledian. And anything it may have to offer is of little use to the diaspora. "Say Armenian textbooks are on offer. Textbooks prepared in Armenia are necessarily obsolete at birth. They cannot correspond to our local values and, besides, the people who would prepare them are fundamentally ignorant." A large segment of the intellectual elite in Armenia is insular. For them nothing exists on the outside. There is no outside culture, no outside world, no need to interact, to change. In ten years, there has been no change. The only way is to open to the outside, which they will have to do one way or the other, in spite of their efforts to the contrary.

 

Turning the idea around, the moderator wondered whether the situation is all that different in the diaspora, where even people considered to be intellectuals seldom challenge orthodoxies. Beledian conceded the point and leveled criticism at the diaspora, where "Armenian communities are showing signs of senility in recent years." For one thing, he said, the traditional political organizations have no new ideas. Even when they go to Armenia, they neither change their names nor develop a program and bylaws to fit the circumstances. Maintaining tradition is a good thing, but political parties and organizations die when they cannot renew themselves. The existing ones seem unable to accept contestation as a way of renewal.

 

Tölölyan asked how arenas can be established to facilitate communication between Armenia and the diaspora. Even when there appears to be no mutual understanding, it is important for writers and thinkers to meet frequently.

 

Beledian thought the outlook was glum. He saw Armenia today as a feudal society that consisted of minor princes. There was no room in that society for dialogue, for differences, for a multiplicity of views. Tölölyan was not so sure. He suspected that there are marginalized people with whom dialogue is possible—people who are out of favor and out of power or just plain never had any. He noted that diaspora leaders love consorting with homeland officials and make very few efforts to go outside official channels. Beledian acknowledged that he and others had lost the desire to go and look.

 

Hot-Button Issues

 

The moderator raised the question of orthography—an issue she has addressed many times before in the pages of Haratch. The spelling rules of Armenian were changed by decree of the Soviet Armenian government in the twenties. The decree met with resistance in the diaspora, where the traditional orthography remains in universal use.

 

Beledian agreed that traditional orthography should be reinstated in Armenia but noted: "We can talk about this until we are blue in the face. I doubt Armenia is interested. For Armenia, the diaspora’s problems with Armenia are the diaspora’s problem."

 

Tölölyan agreed that the issue of orthography in Armenia exists only in the diaspora. In Armenia itself no more than ten people worry about it. For him the central issue was differences in mentality. Orthography, dual citizenship were the wrong issues on which to focus.

 

Citizenship was also not an issue for Beledian. He objected to the premise of including the issue of dual citizenship in the Constitution of Armenia.4 "I have no particular desire to acquire a third citizenship. But I do not think this matter should have been raised as a matter of principle. That is what is inappropriate. It is an uncontested part of the definition of ‘Armenian’ that it includes Argentinean Armenians, Siberian Armenians."

 

Feeling Superior

 

Beledian went back to the matter of intransigence among intellectuals in Armenia: "Let’s face it: for many people in Armenia, their encounters with Armenians from outside are power struggles. They have a strong need to assert what they have and what they know. But what they have and what they know is very limited by international standards. A great intellectual void is expressed in their assertions of self-sufficiency. The biggest danger facing Armenia is that feeling of superiority."

 

Tölölyan said that in Armenia, they want service and money from diasporans, not thoughts or opinions; from America, they want Coke and music and jeans, no serious ideas, please. They want the products of one system of being—diasporan organization, solidarity, work, sacrifice—and again the material benefits and products of a nondiasporan, let us call it a democratic capitalist, system—but no virtues or ideas of that, either: contracts, free elections, free communication, and the like. Material yes, but why learn something about the systems of thought, organization, and behavior that may have had something to do with producing the prosperity and generosity of Armenians in diaspora and Americans?

 

Beledian said he was engaged in exploring the impact of new technologies on Armenian identity. These technologies are already in place in Armenia. There is an effort to block out external influences, but the effort is too little too late, since the influences are already inside Armenia.

 

Tölölyan, however, noted that according to one theory—that exists in Marxian as well as conventional thought—when technology and the economy take a certain direction, culture and civilization necessarily keep up with them. You cannot take one and block out the others. Indeed, Tölölyan suggested that rather than fighting such change, the diaspora might serve as a bridge between Armenia and western culture. Armenians from the homeland must learn from the diaspora to use the new technology to be part of the nation, not just citizens of their state.

 

The moderator questioned whether the diaspora is organized enough to serve in the capacity of a bridge of cultures. Tölölyan suggested that the diaspora is too fractured to develop its own true coordinating organization, but that both it and Armenia could gain if the united Armenian leadership there—say the president, the catholicos, maybe some well-liked figures, maybe flanked by the billionaire philanthropist Kirk Kerkorian—issued a call to a conference in Yerevan with the explicit goal of fashioning a Diasporan Council that would not seek to eliminate diasporan differences but to coordinate all major organizations at the top.

 

The moderator was skeptical about whether such a move would in fact bring about a decent leadership. Tölölyan agreed that such centralization would not necessarily be a silver bullet. Many people want it, however. And many people lack self-confidence. So if the call comes from Armenia, perhaps various elements will come together. It will be a learning experience if nothing else. In any case, creating a new source of legitimacy is not a bad thing. The old ones are stagnant. Meanwhile, "independent people like us will continue to do what we can on the margins, seeking out elements in Armenia with whom cooperation may be possible."

 

The moderator wondered where such debate might take place today. Beledian noted that the Argentinean-Armenian scholar Vartan Matiossian has suggested that the Internet can serve in that capacity. Tölölyan added that in the homeland, "Hratch Bayatyan has effectively theorized the use of the Internet more than anyone else; in the diaspora, so has Raffi Ajemian." Beledian predicted that traditional organizations will continue their traditional activities, but new and more vibrant institutions seem more likely to provide ways out of the current intellectual and cultural crisis facing the Armenian people.

 

Vincent Lima

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Notes

 

1 The participants were given the opportunity to revise and extend the remarks attributed to them in Haratch. Khachig Tölölyan did so. Thus, the present text does not correspond directly to the original report in Haratch.

 

2 The General Epistle of Saint Nerses Shnorhali was directed "to all the faithful of the Armenian nation, those in the East who inhabit our homeland Armenia, those who have emigrated to the regions of the West, and those in the middle lands who were taken among foreign peoples, and who for our sins are scattered in cities, castles, villages and farms in every corner of the earth." Saint Nerses Shnorhali, General Epistle, trans. and intro. Fr. Arakel Aljanian (New Rochelle, N.Y.: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, 1996), p. 13.

 

3 For a discussion of this point, see H. Aram Veeser, "International Nationalism: Living Lack, Muzzled Cohort: A Response to Anahid Kassabian and David Kazanjian," Armenian Forum 1, no. 1 (Spring 1998), pp. 37–59.

 

4 Article 14 of Armenia’s Constitution reads: "The procedure for obtaining and terminating Republic of Armenia citizenship is provided for by law. Armenians by nationality obtain Republic of Armenia citizenship by a simplified procedure. A citizen of the Republic of Armenia cannot be at the same time a citizen of another state."

http://www.gomidas.org/forum/af3c.htm

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited January 30, 2001).]

[Guest]

The problem of dual citizenship raises the fundamental question about the purpose of having Republic of Armenia, is it a country of all Armenians, or is it the country of all ethnic groups residing in the Republic of Armenia. There are two paths we can take, Greece (country of all people residing and loyal to Republic of Greece), or Israel (a country of all people who have Jewish ancestry). What’s the purpose of having Republic of Armenia, to protect all ethnic Armenians living around the world or to serve the interest of people residing within the borders of the republic? Sometimes these two can conflict each other.

[Guest]

Dear Alpha,

 

A simple question: Why can't we have both ? !

Why should there be a conflict if we have diplomatic and educated people handling the relations between the citizens of Armenia and the Diaspora Armenia ?

I remember that "Spiourkahayoutian Hed Gabi Gomideyi Nachararoutiun@ " was doing quite a good job! Based initialy on this format , we can built, and should do so, a smooth path.

 

Definitely there will be some problems, however the final decision-taking will lie with the Political powers and Administration of the RoA.

We can not exclude something , just because there will be some problems in the process.

After all we all have something to gain!

The Diaspora will feel the 'breath' of the RoA on them , which will strengthen their ties and love with the Rupublic. And the RoA will gain some potential investors, political lobbying powers in other countries , and the love and respect of all of us.

 

Don't you ever forget that ,Armenia was partly (to say the least), built and nourished with the assistance of the "nerkaght" people, who once upon a time were considered Diaspora Armenians.

They gave their dreams , their love and their work to make the Armenia that you and me inherited.........

 

Let's keep that 'flame' alive and you'll see , Nobody will ever get damaged!

[MJ]

An email I received from a colleague today:

 

...

 

Since I already invested 2 silent hours listening to our round-and-round discussion Friday, let me invest 5 more minutes to write something here you may not have heard already:

 

In the 1950s most US Jews were not very sympathetic to Israel, so US Jewish behavioral scientists did a series of mostly unpublished surveys to profile "patterns of identification among American Jews"--religion / nationality/ culture/ statehood...? I reviewed these simple yet powerful studies, and saw how they were used to track and even shape Jews' and Gentiles' views on the value of Israel.

 

Soon after Armenian statehood in 1991, I suggested and then was invited to meet with a wealthy US Armenian leader, and spent 3 hours discussing the modest cost in money and time of doing these same surveys among US Armenians. ...No follow-up, nor even a thank-you letter. Of course, as you realize, US Armenians have uneven knowledge and opinions on Armenia which beg to be studied statistically, but if any of the well-endowed Hye groups has done this the past 12 years, I know nothing of it. Of course this is the next sound step for those who want to generate US support for a democratic Armenia, but a step that may never be taken.

[Twilight Bark]

Such studies would of course be very useful. But it doesn't seem like the "Armenian" way of doing things (which tend to be more "instinctive" than "scientific"), does it? Both American and Jewish cultures emphasize "rational" mode of thinking significantly more than the Armenian culture does, and such studies would appear as natural, self-evidently useful tools to them. In contrast, it is not uncommon for our "leader" types to not be very interested in other Armenians' world views or circumstances, since they already know everything that needs to be known. What's the point of choreographing with other people when they should fall in line with the one that knows the way. And if they don't, they should be dropped like a rock; they are not needed. If this mentality feels familiar, one should not look hard and far for the explanation of what's in that e-mail.

[Lev7]

Very interesting thread and very interesting replies. In my opinion Diaspora Armenians are more Armenian inside than Hayastanci Armenians. When I first came to U.S. at the age of 15 I used to think the opposite and used to criticize Diaspora Armenians. But this changed a lot as I saw how much the Diaspora Armenians do to preserve our Armenian culture and how much aid they send to Armenia, which sadly goes to the pockets of the government officials. I was amazed how an Armenian family donated $1.8 million dollars to the university I go to (Clark University), so they would start a course on Armenian Genocide. Now we also have a course on Armenian History. I could never imagine a Hayastanci Armenian donating that much money for Armenian causes.

 

I know there are lots of differences between the Hayastanci and Diaspora Armenians, but we should not forget that we originated from the same ancestors and that we have a common goal, to preserve our rich culture and help our motherland, that is run by corrupted people. I would just love to see the Armenian government to be handed over to Diaspora Armenians. Armenia could of achieved more, if those deadbeats weren't sitting on top.

 

Anyways, I just want to say thank you to all the Diaspora Armenians for preserving our culture and helping Armenia, even though many of you never been to Armenia.

Edited September 23, 2003 by Lev7

[Harut]

It's not every regular Khachik Khachikian's responsibility to preserve a culture, teach history, or play in political games. we have a government, we have governmental and non-governmental institutions that are designated for those purposes.

unfortunately, many diasporans don't want to accept this fact (the existance of the government) and gather around it. instead, they try to accomplish those things individually or in small (fanatical) groups, which most of the times leads to even greater disasters.

 

this is how i see it.

[Nvard]

heeeeeeey, we're all Armenians after all

[Lev7]

heeeeeeey, we're all Armenians after all

exactly

[Armen]

http://www.azg.am/start.pl?lang=EN&num=2003110101

 

Country of dreams?

 

BREAKING THE CHAINS OF ARMENIAN SLAVERY

 

"The sun's ferocious beam could be felt upon our backs as our tenth hour working straight came. The gallon of water we had brought with us now completely used up, we were going into a state of hallucinatory fever. The boss yelled at us to continue work and not stop for breaks." Sounds like an excerpt from a slave's accounts in a plantation in the 1800's? In fact it does, however, this excerpt is from my own experiences working for a "fellow Armenian" in Los Angeles in the year 2003.

 

Coming to America as an immigrant, I had moved here for a brighter future, and a feeling that In California, Armenians cared for each other and wanted to move forward and progress together. I came with the belief that Armenians stuck together, and worked hard to help each other out in times of hardship. What I found was that there is no Armenian pride left. Armenian Business owners see their Armenian compatriots who have come to America with no documents, and in need of jobs, as a way to profit from their disadvantageous position. They hire fellow Armenians at below minimum wages, and subject them to excruciatingly brutal work conditions, and long hours of heavy work. They are not poor businessmen, who cannot afford to pay higher wages. They are in fact, very wealthy and own several homes and expensive cars; all due to their high profits obtained from tax evasion, and low wages paid to their workers. These businessmen have become wealthy by the blood and sweat of other Armenians. I am compelled to tell the truth and expose these sick bastards, as they have no care towards the livelihood of other Armenians and only wish to become wealthy and approach their mind conceived "godliness".

 

One such shop I worked in was a marble and granite shop. When entering this dark and dusty shop, pockets of the sun's rays glistened off the dilapidated machinery. The rat infested "sweat shop" was truly a grotesque sight in itself. Within the shop, there were as many as 10 employees at one time. Later, many had left, but the most there had ever been was about 10 workers. About 5 of the ten workers, would be working within the shop while the other 5 or so would be working outside the shop in homes laying tiles or installing counter tops. One man was appointed to cutting the huge slabs of marble or granite with a massive saw that was operated electrically. The other men would glue edges onto the counter tops while others grinded the edges round and polished them. The team I was appointed to would then load the huge counter tops onto a truck, and head out to homes where we installed them. Now it is easy to imagine the extreme weight of these counter tops, as they are made of rock. The boss would only send two guys to transport and install these counter tops. One time my partner and I were sent to this job where the counter top was this L-shaped mammoth of slab, and the location where we were to install it was down these flight of stairs. Despite numerous protests to the boss to bring more helpers to move the slab, he refused and forced us to go alone. Now, he knew that it took 5 guys to barely load the slab onto the truck. So how did he expect two guys to move it down a flight of stairs? Well it wouldn't have been profitable for him to send 5 guys to a job where he was charging so little. You see, he didn't have the business sense of making customers happy by quality service which most people would happily pay more for. The way he made profits was like this. He would charge customers half the market price for such services that any other legitimate company would have charged. How then does he make a profit? Well, he would pay us very low wages, a daily rate. Now he didn't care about the hours we worked. Our normal day should have been from 8am to 5pm. But when he paid us daily, he meant daily. He would want us to work 18 hours just so he could get his job done and make more. The more days it takes us to get a job done, the more he would have to pay us the less he would make. But it is inhuman to work such long hours and at such a heavy job. Well, my partner and I were lucky enough to find two other construction workers that day, and the 4 of us barely made it down those stairs. Given a normal 8 hour work day, people have to take a 30 min break at least and a lot of places also a 15 min coffee break. Now the days we worked until 11pm, (sometimes 1 am) we had only taken a 15 min break. If the boss ever saw us resting for 5 min, he would yell at us and tell us to get to work. We were lucky that he wouldn't always be at the work sites, so then we could have taken longer breaks, but sometimes he would drive over to check up on us. Many days he would stay watching over us and force us to work longer hours. By law, you are allowed to work overtime but no more than 4 hours. Also, the wage you receive for over time is one and a half times your normal hourly wage. We would get the same daily amount no matter how long we worked. I for example, started working at 40 dollars a day. After 4 months, I was making 50 dollars a day. Many times I had come home dead tired at 12 am, too tired to cook my dinner or even enjoy a nice evening with friends. This slave driver of a boss, also made people work Sundays, (normal work week was 6 days for us) but I took a stand and refused. I was punished indirectly by other worse duty jobs.

 

In terms of health and human rights issues, we were abused under all the factions. Some days I would work in the shop, where the boss wanted us to get into a garbage bin that was dangerously over filled, and was too heavy to transport by the dump trucks. This garbage bin was full of the decomposing remains of haunta virus infested rats, and when I refused to come near any rat without a respirator, the boss just made a joke and called me a chicken. It took every nerve in my body not to frag (abbr. verb for “fragmentation grenade”) this evil man, but I didn't want to be caught by the police after and put in jail then deported. Eventually I left this job however, and found other jobs with Armenians.

 

The next job I took while working in California, was at a dry cleaners. This was a well-established business that brought many affluent customers. The business was owned and operated by an old Armenian couple. This seemed like a heaven sent job, since I didn't have to contend with harmful dust or back breaking labor. I was wrong. They had me working at this job for the whole week. I'd arrive at 10am and leave the store at 9pm. I would have to sort the clothes according to these numbers and colors attached to them. Seems light enough a job doesn't it? Well it would be if you only worked 8 hours at it. But the job was an assembly line job and breaks were a joke. The flow of clothes to be sorted kept me on my feet at all times and I constantly had to run from one position on the line to another. The man's wife was a crazy cross eyed woman who always yelled in a high pitched shrill that would awaken the dead. She would never talk in a normal voice. She would only yell. After my first week on the job I went to the boss to discuss my hours and work out a schedule and wage. He started talking to me very rudely and said, "Look here. This is a 24-hour business, and you are going to work here everyday. You will work here for two months straight every single day until 9pm. After two months, you will get every third Sunday off."

 

I was surprised by the tone he conveyed especially since he was trying to impose slavery in the 21st century! I told him I could not work such hours, and every single day since I have to study. I take college at home since I cannot attend a university here nor do I have enough money to. I study from the Internet based colleges. I still will receive a nationally accredited degree, so the prestige of an expensive college doesn't make a difference to me since I will be working in a good job once I become a citizen. I tried to reason with him as to why I couldn't work a normal shift. He just grunted over and over again how this is a 24 hour business and such. The concept of rationale did not reach his mindset. I wasn't even asking to work part time, I was just asking to work a normal 40 hour work week. Well the reason why he wanted to have me working there every day was again a matter of personal gain. Him and his wife didn't care that I was a young fellow Armenian new to this country looking for a start to my life. They just saw me as a way to save money on wages and become rich. Might I note that everyone there was receiving sub standard wages and working brutally long hours.

 

To conclude this writing, I would like to say that I have lost a lot of faith in the Armenian brotherhood. I feel the old honorable ways of the Armenians I was brought up to believe, were all washed away by the capitalist greed embedded within these business owners. They will stop at nothing to become rich, and even use their own people who are in need of a hand, to gain the riches they so desire. The nationalism I used to feel for being Armenian has changed drastically. I still feel that I am Armenian, but I seriously doubt the motives of most of the business owners out there. This wasn't an isolated incident. Just go to Glendale and North Hollywood and see all the Armenian shops there. See how many hours a day the poor Armenian immigrants work, and the miniscule wages they receive. They have families to support but little do their bosses care. We are led to believe that slavery was abolished more than a century ago. Why then, does the use of slavery drive the American economy forward from the shadows of horrific sweatshops?

 

Armen Garabedian

[America-Hye]

These people are an-eres, just like my conservative relatives who have cut my brother and I out of our inheritance, using their legal skills. They all have multiple mansions to each family and yet are greedy for more. The only good conservative is a dead conservative, politically and power-wise that is. I would like to put them all in sweatshops.

[Sip]

Major cleanup done. Sorry it had to come to this but there was no other solution that I could see.

[hagopn]

Wow!, how wonderfully and inquisitively confused (and horribly uninformed) a people we are in the "Anglophonized" (new word?) sector of our Diaspora.

 

I like the following phrase so much, that I used it as the title of a mini-essay.

 

"ARMENIA IS NOT MY COUNTRY."

 

This type of psychological conviction of "being foreign to one's self" was represented so very well by an eloquent "lover of Iran." Although I don't necessarily see anything wrong with having feelings of affection for one's birthplace, there are certain psychological dimensions to address.

 

This individual (who is apparently half-Iranian?, who knows, not that it's relevant) has assumed the role of the perfect "mahajir," (arabic for "nomad," "exile," or "immigrant," as the Arabic term seems most appropriate). With the typical phrase of "USA is where I earn my daily bread," he has exemplified the notion of "Our hats, hon gats" (in its western Armenian form roughly translated as "where there's bread, there is homestead.") The individual loves Iran and the memory of his (apparently pleasant) surroundings, his country of birth, and loves the Iranian people and their demeanor.

 

In any case, this young man's (childhood) description of Iran sounds as though it comes from a "chatma mama" mother (who hates Armenian men from Armenia due to her dominatrix personality - typical among Iranian Armenian women of the Shah Era's "baby boomer" generation, chrnologically speaking). The "Chatma mama" (an Indo-Iranian adaptation to Fatma Mama) has apparently passed on this information to her as-of-yet-too-young a child to remember the actual landscape upon which the Armenian identity has struggled to survive in Iran eversince Shah Abbas burned and churned them down to Isfahan (using their piled corpses as a bridge over the Arax river). Nevertheless, this young man's "Iran" sounds like a very pretty fairy tale from a childhood dream.

 

One thing to add: When you speak to the Iranian Armenian men in "isolation," meaning without their wives or mothers present, you will get a more realistic description from men who are very critical of Muslim and Jewish Iranians. They tell horrifying tales of persecution, intimidation, business fraud, and bureacratic badgering for being Christian men. After all, they were the ones to provide the "Mercedes Benz" for their (typically demanding) women to show off. I even have numerous accounts of non-chalant infidelity on behalf of some wealthier "liberated" women in Iran who had fully exploited the relative political weakness of their supplicant Christian husbands in a (fanatically) Muslim dominated speudo-liberal society.

 

A typical saying from an Iranian Armenian who lived in Iran as an adult male is: "Even if you receive an once of pure gold from an Iranian, don't take it because it will melt a hole in your pocket, and you will lose whatever else you had in yuor pocket as well." Another typical saying among the adult male Iranian Armenians is: "An Iranian will rape you and then, after giving you a rose, will proceed to write a poem about your lovely features." Apparently there is some truth to it, because the consensus is stratling, but mostly among the men. Keep in mind that Iranian Armenians differ from the rest of "Armeniandom" in this one fascinating attribute: The women dominate, and the women equality hate domineering men. You wil, for this reason, see a great percentage of Iranian-Armenian women (irrationally) hate the "Ashkhal Hayastantsi."

 

The consequent (and near-total) disassociation from the "Fatherland" (Armenians use the term Hayrenik to put more salt on the anti-feminist wound) is, in my opinino, the direct result of this "dominatrix" mother type so prevalent among Iranian Armenians.

 

I must add, however, that not in the least do the majority of Iranian-Armenians fit this mold. Many are indeed very strong families with strong nationalist convictions. And it is indeed very interesting that nationalist families have strong fathers, even among Iranian Armenians. By far the most interesting phenomenon is that nationalist-minded Armenians, no matter where they live, always think alike, have pretty much the same ponts of reference, and they almost always are repsectful of each other. The issue, therefore, from what observations I have done, is not of "conservatism" or "liberalism" or of "passports," but of being conscious with long-term versus unconscious with short-term memories. The best immunity against such "compartmetalization" of our nation is our nationalism itself, which, again, predates that of "enlightened" and Rome-battered Europe by at least 16 centuries.

 

 

There is much to be said, but I wil leave it at that for now.

Edited November 27, 2003 by hagopn

[hagopn]

BREAKING THE CHAINS OF ARMENIAN SLAVERY

Armenian Business owners see their Armenian compatriots who have come to America with no documents, and in need of jobs, as a way to profit from their disadvantageous position. They hire fellow Armenians at below minimum wages, and subject them to excruciatingly brutal work conditions, and long hours of heavy work. They are not poor businessmen, who cannot afford to pay higher wages. They are in fact, very wealthy and own several homes and expensive cars; all due to their high profits obtained from tax evasion, and low wages paid to their workers. These businessmen have become wealthy by the blood and sweat of other Armenians. I am compelled to tell the truth and expose these sick bastards, as they have no care towards the livelihood of other Armenians and only wish to become wealthy and approach their mind conceived "godliness".

Of course such exploitation is typical, especially among those who have absolutely no (sincere) nationalist (and Christian, for that matter) principles. The entire jewelry manufacturnig and low-cost garment industries are dependent upon such "sweat-shop" conditions, and no one will speak out against them. The diasporan "parties" such as the ARF, ADL, or otherwise have never truly taken leadership positions at the grass roots, except when it came time to rake in the bucks for asome sub-standard school. Why would the exploiters care if in their entire lives they have been told that no one is accountable for Armenians, and there will be no repercussions in exploiting and persecuting Armenians?

 

I tell, precisely because of this is why it is absolutely necessary to be truthful about history. We have yet to be honest about our plight and history, and we always absolve ourselves, as individuals and as (any given) collective, of responsbility. Especially those who are "comfortable" with their dis-association from the Armenian identity or the Armenian statehood, for example, have serious issue to work inside their own psyche. They are in denial in that they are part of the problem and not the solution.

[arshakuni]

Sorry guys,but there is no true armenian who hasn`t lived in Armenia.Easy as that.Being Armenian is not only knowing how to say hello in Armenian or visiting Armenian parties from time to time,but being a part of entire nation,with it`s history ,language,culture and so on.And you can`t achieve it no matter how eager you are by living anywhere else but Armenia.No offense,I`ve spent my childhood in Europe,and going back to Armenia was a disaster of a lifetime at the time for me.The first 2 years that I spent in school were a real nightmare for me.I hated Armenia and Armenians.Complete disappointment.But now,looking back at this period I`m glad I had it in my life.Because it was followed by the university education in Armenia,which is in my opinion ,on a much higher level that the one I`m getting now in United Kingdom.I studied the history and the culture of my nation and I was proud of it .People in Armenia ,no matter how geghaci they seem to you ,are of a much higher personal qualities ,than the majority of diaspora.Getting on with them is not an easy thing to do ,but they are the real armenians .Because they are the ones who bare the difficulties of their motherland,they are the ones who fought for Artsax,they are the ones who serve in armenian natonal army and protect the borders of it,they pay taxes in Armenia,not in U.S.. They speak armenian every day,they learn armenian in their schools,they compose armenian music,they write books in armenian .

What I`m trying to say is that you`re not the ones to judge the nation you`re not a part of any more.I`m not saying that it`s your fault,or anything,I`d be one of you had I staid to live abroad .Now I`ve left my motherland again,I`m a student in United Kingdom,but all I`m thinking of is my country and iy`s people,and no matter what my parents say or do(they want me to stay here)I`m going back straight after graduation.

KECCE HAYASTAN@

[hagopn]

arshakuni wrote:

 

Sorry guys,but there is no true armenian who hasn`t lived in Armenia.Easy as that.Being Armenian is not only knowing how to say hello in Armenian or visiting Armenian parties from time to time,but being a part of entire nation,with it`s history ,language,culture and so on.And you can`t achieve it no matter how eager you are by living anywhere else but Armenia.

 

I don't agree. You CAN be Armenian, but you cannot possibly hope to pass on your Armenian identity in "cultures" that impsoe their own mainstream (or coutner-cultural) ideas onto you. IN the west you are told not be different while having been told you should be an "individual." I have often been told I am more Armenian in my demeanor that most Armenians from Armenia BY Armenians from Armenia... ---

 

People in Armenia ,no matter how geghaci they seem to you ,are of a much higher personal qualities ,than the majority of diaspora.Getting on with them is not an easy thing to do ,but they are the real armenians

 

Yes, absolutely agree that the so-called "geghaci" label used in the pejorative sense is a sign of materialist and superficial idiots. That's besides the point.

 

However, I haven't seen that they are "hard to get along with" if you are open and honest with them, those who are open and honest themselves... They are rugged and straight forward bunch in most cases, those "gehgaci," and I love them for it! I loved them so much, I married one of them! ---

 

Because they are the ones who bare the difficulties of their motherland,they are the ones who fought for Artsax,they are the ones who serve in armenian natonal army and protect the borders of it,they pay taxes in Armenia,not in U.S.. They speak armenian every day,they learn armenian in their schools,they compose armenian music,they write books in armenian .

 

Well, we bore the difficulty of maintaining our identity, and we also did bear the burden of organizing and financing our own education in Armenian. Some of us did go there to serve the Army, and some of us did not have that opportunity. I served the US Air Force in my day, and I was in the US military when the conflict over there began. It would have been an honor to serve the Armenian armed forces, but politically I am a cynic. I didn't agree with the "rush rush" indpendence march, and my suspicions turned out to be true.

 

In any case, there are many ways to fight for your nation and sole state protecting and perpetuating your national identity: For example, I consider historian Martiros Gavoukjian to be a national hero. It's besides the point that he was from Baghdad, but he did participate in the building of Armenia as an architect who has designed numerous public buildings and living quarter projects. But his greatest contribution, in my opinion, is the work in ancient Armenain history that he did. He is listed as Mardiros Kavoukjian at narek.com. Go check him out...

 

In other words, he fought equally hard and did dedicate his life to that cause, the cause of presenting pre-Christian Armenian history in as accurate a format as possible. When you see Turks presenting Urartu as "a Turkic Kingdom," then you can see at least part of the value of his work. He pioneered it, becuase he was INDEPENDENT from the Soviet pressure to conform to Diakonov's theories that Turks use to their advantrage.

 

What I`m trying to say is that you`re not the ones to judge the nation you`re not a part of any more.

 

Oh, I see. You are directing this to those wo debase the "hayastantsi" or hayastan herself. Then I am in agreement with you, and only wish to add that you not commit the same crime of painting everyone OUTSIDE of Hayastan wih the same brush, something that you obviously don't like when done to Armenians INSIDE Hayastan.

 

Sirov,

 

Hagop

 

p.s. Unfortunately the "exploitation" business is true across the board, no matter where the Armenian exploiter is from. Those from Beirut, Tehran, Moscow, Yerevan, or elsewhere, they all exploit their fellow Armenians in precarious position of having no residency status. It looks as though Bush's "amnesty" act might change that situation. I don't know what the particulars of that law are, but I would imagine that offering amnesty might tip the balance infavor of the currently exploited. At least I hope that will be the case.

Edited January 12, 2004 by hagopn

[Lev7]

Armenians are Armenians! Ofcourse there are differences between diaspora Armenians and Hayastanci Armenians. But in fact this is also not true because there are many differences between a diaspora Armenian from Iraq and a diaspora Armenian from Syria or Turkey or US or Europe. And it`s our mission and duty to take all good qualities of each group and turn them in to a common thing. I mean isn`t this exactly what the Turks tried to do to us? They wanted to kill us and to devide us. They wanted to make us an enemy of our nation. HAYASTAN is our country Diaspora or NON-Diaspora, Armenian is our language Eastern or Western and Hay Arakelakan Yegexeci is our Religion. So we should be not so keen on the differences but on what we have in common. We should be re-united and show the world that we are strong. Think of the poetry of William Saroyan, when to armenians meet in the dessert after being tortured, after Armenia is destroyed, We can be sure they will create a new Armenia.

 

Armenia is a geografical place, a small spot on the map but a huge place inb the hart of every armenian. Like the song of Aram Asatrian says: Ashxarum inchqan HAY ka, ajdkan el ka YEREVAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

DAVO

What a great post, almost made me cry Could not of said better myself.

[Yerevanian]

Not every Armenian is Armenian! No matter where you live even if you have Armenian blood that doesn’t qualify you to be Armenian. Yes, you are called Armenian but you have to feel one! You have to be proud of every mistake your country made, you have to cry every time you hear “Dle Yaman”…. Who cares if your parents are Armenian, if you call yourself “American” or “Canadian”, then forget about Armenia!

And I agree with Arshakuhi you have to live there to be one of them!

Couple years ago I attended Armenian class for high school credits, and I was amazed! Students could hardly speak the language! Most of the couldn’t read or write! How can you call them Armenians? For one year all I learned in that class is that Turks killed Armenians and must pay! That’s not all of our history! We were only learning about Hay Dat, like we never had anything else to remember! And when I asked the teacher to stop already with the genocide and teach this kids to speak properly, he said that I was wrong type of Armenian and that he is trying to make me better (lol) at least I speak read and write!

What my point is, is that a lot of Armenians don’t know what it takes to be one! I myself think that I am Armenian because I refused to change my citizenship to Canadian, I will stay immigrant until I return to my country. And if someone thinks that they are Armenian think why? And How?

Edited May 4, 2004 by Yerevanian

[Azat]

Dear Yerevanian, if you were the representative for Armenia, would you be willing to walk up to Kirk Krikorian and tell him that he is not an Armenian? Or to Aznavour? or to so many of the Armenians who have ended up in the Diaspora because of the genocide or because of the political system under Soviet rule or because of economical conditions(like you and I).

 

You still have not defined what an Armenian is, if it is a person who lives in Armenia then you and I can certainly not qualify as one as we run away from our Armenianness the minute things got tough(you to Canada and I to US). How can you tell me that you are more of and Armenian because you have kept your citizenship and I have not?

 

The day we(and this we is mostly the Armenians of Hayastan) become more accepting of our brothers and sisters throughout the world is the day we will become a MUCH more powerful people.

 

BTW, welcome to HyeForum. It is great to have you here and I hope you are here to stay for long.

 

BTW2: I agree 100% about the teaching of genocide in Armenian schools in the west. Kids grow up hating…

[Yerevanian]

Dear Yerevanian, if you were the representative for Armenia, would you be willing to walk up to Kirk Krikorian and tell him that he is not an Armenian? Or to Aznavour? or to so many of the Armenians who have ended up in the Diaspora because of the genocide or because of the political system under Soviet rule or because of economical conditions(like you and I).

 

You still have not defined what an Armenian is, if it is a person who lives in Armenia then you and I can certainly not qualify as one as we run away from our Armenianness the minute things got tough(you to Canada and I to US). How can you tell me that you are more of and Armenian because you have kept your citizenship and I have not?

 

The day we(and this we is mostly the Armenians of Hayastan) become more accepting of our brothers and sisters throughout the world is the day we will become a MUCH more powerful people.

 

BTW, welcome to HyeForum. It is great to have you here and I hope you are here to stay for long.

 

BTW2: I agree 100% about the teaching of genocide in Armenian schools in the west. Kids grow up hating…

Azat... if you read my post carefully, you'll realize that what I was saying was that you can't be Armenian just because your parents are! including me! I was one, when I was living there. you think I knew what Armenian meant? so many people live there and curse Armenia at the same time! BUT you have to call yourself Armenian at least when you saw it! I'm sure Kirkorian went there and loves Armenia as much as we all do, but Aznavour didn't even want to admit that he was Armenian until some years ago or should I say after he was famous?

so. see not everyone who has Armenian blood feels Armenian! I can bring many many examples from my surrounding!

 

Azat I ended up being Diaspora... I can't say that Diaspora is not Armenian. That's far from what my point is

 

Thank you for welcoming me.. I hope I'll stay for long:)